Geez, the ACLU needs better hobbies. No one's rights were trampled when
the pamphleteers were restricted to a certain area to pass out their propaganda.
They could still pass it out. I for one might of punched one of them if I had
been met at the bus with them waiving their stuff in my face as I stepped off
the bus, had I gone to the open house.

As I recall, there are free
speech zones outside of the Conference Center in Salt Lake where the protesters,
anti-Mormons, etc. are restricted to. The ACLU seems to be in favor of that.
Same thing.

The free speech zones have ample precident, and Brigham
City was just trying to prevent the type of incident that seems to happen almost
every time General Conference convienes in Salt Lake.

Several years ago I was involved in a protest outside the office of House
Speaker Denny Hastert. Barricades were set up around a 50 foot square buffer
zone. Each "side" of the issue could extend as far back from the
barricades as needed to accomodate the size of their group.No one was
injured and we could express our point as much as we wanted. People could
gather literature from either side if they chose.My point is that there
are ways to allow freedom of speech/assembly and still provide unrestricted
passage to the temple grounds.Of course, if your intent is to get "in
your face" with people, such a plan won't work. I'm not sure that
has anything to do with the First Ammendment.

Our Constitutional freedoms come with consequences. Often religious beliefs
conflict with those freedoms. The anti-Muslim film of this past week is an
example. Such religious intolerance and evil distortion incite peolple in
various ways. We've seen cartoons that do the same.

As for the
Brigham City ordinance restricting free speech on public property, the ACLU is
exactly correct. The ACLU is usually correct. We all want the Bill of Rights
freedaoms. But we also do not want others to exercise theirs "in our
face" or within our space.

And religion may be the most sensitive
and dangerous realm for freedom conflicts.

DN Subscriber, you are wrong. The ACLU doesn't choose their clients based
on any political viewpoint. They've defended neo-Nazis, Rush Limbaugh (I
couldn't post a link, but Google "Rush Limbaugh and ACLU" -- it
will get you to a Fox news article that talks about it) and many other
people/groups you wouldn't consider "liberal". Their goal is to
protect Constitutional rights. Some people get confused as to why the ACLU
won't defend a conservative when a liberal individual speaks out against
them, etc., but the ACLU only gets involved when the government is involved in
the issue. In other words, your Constitutional rights aren't being
violated if the government is not involved (Bill of Rights protects people
against government not other individuals). So, if someone wanted to pass out
anti-Muslim literature and the government stopped them from doing so, yes, the
ACLU would defend them.

Re flashback, that would be possible jail time as well as a civil suit against
you. They have the right to speech and assembly on the sidewalk as that is
publicly owned. The grass owned by the church would be a different matter.

DNSubscriber - The ACLU came out in support of Chik-Fil-A's owner and his
right to express his opinion on marriage. They defend ALL of our Constitutional
rights. That's the tought thing for some wth the Constitution - it
protects those we disagree with.

The Main Street Church has long been
an anti-Mormon group. They produce videos challenging many things - DNA and the
Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, etc. I would be concerned about their
actions while handing out their literature, but would not agree to restrict
their right to do so. I also feel that those attending the open house have a
first ammendment right to do so without harassment.

That said, the
Main Street Church folks seem to be nice people. I got some free popcorn and
water from them at Peach Days last Saturday...

I am all for free speech. Although it is allowed, it is rarely effective. I have
seen people at political events, church events, schools, etc. In this case, this
church simply wants to be able to hand out pamphlets and talk to any member of
the LDS faith and others that are not LDS that are touring the new temple in BC.
Most people coming already have their minds made up before attending any event.
Most people that are protesting usually come across as a little fanatical and
usually lose the attention of the people they are most trying to convince.

In any case, let them hand out their pamphlets. Allow people the
opportunity to see if they want to pursue other churches, organizations, etc.
Most of it simply isn't effective.

99.999999999% of what the ACLU supports is
anti-christian and anti-conservative. They take the occassional conservative
case to put on a front. The VAST majority of what they do is to suppress
religion.

Yes, you are right, but you have taken Free Speech out
of context... Free Speech liberties are guaranteed. Those that assault, cause
harm, threaten or instill riot have violated other laws, not the Free Speech
liberty.

The Government (in this case the City) cannot restrict Free
Speech because they don't want a particular event affected by these folks.
Nor could the City restrict you from going into a theatre because they were
afraid you would yell "FIRE!"

Yes, you are right, but you have taken Free Speech out
of context... Free Speech liberties are guaranteed. Those that assault, cause
harm, threaten or instill riot have violated other laws, not the Free Speech
liberty.

The Government (in this case the City) cannot restrict Free
Speech because they don't want a particular event affected by these folks.
Nor could the City restrict you from going into a theatre because they were
afraid you would yell "FIRE!"

CottageCheese said: Sarcasm, cynicism and mockery. Did YOU learn that in
Church?Actually yes, I learned it from the people who attended my church,
the dominant Church in Utah.

I learn it from watching Mitt, mock the
president.

lost in DC said: 99.999999999% of what the ACLU supports
is anti-christian and anti-conservative.Making things up again? This is
why people tend to not take your arguments seriously.Why do the
republicans hate free speech? Except when their idols on the radio yell it at
them?

@lost in DC -- The ACLU only gets involved with religion if government is
establishing or sponsoring a specific religion or if it is denying someone the
right to exercise or practice their religion. They aren't
"against" religion. It only seems that way to you probably because the
governmental action that the ACLU has opposed agreed with your particular
religious beliefs. Now if the government started promoting, say Scientology,
you'd probably not like that and would think the ACLU was fabulous.

Ironic that the ACLU argues that protesters may not block people from being at
the main access point of an abortion clinic (supporting buffer zones), but they
have that right at LDS Temples (opposing buffer zones).

middle/class "The ACLU is usually correct". Now that's something
you don't read everyday.If we choose to pretend that to be true, even
though legal history proves that to be far from true. I would ask that they at
least be consistent in how they go about defending/attacking different
religions.Example: Have you ever seen the limited access given in areas of
the United States where Islamic celebrations are going on? Police put up
barriers 2-3 blocks away.Photos are not allowed. Filming is not
allowed.Didn't see the ACLU taking on that group.So as another
here pointed out, the credibility of the ACLU and those who conceal their true
intentions under the guise of feeling discriminated against are simply too easy
to expose.

The free speech of the pamphleteers was never
restricted, it was fully allowed within the zone permitted. I highly doubt the
ACLU will win this court case, as it would set a precedence for other free
speech zones set up by cities. Could you imagine what the effect would be if
they couldn't limit the free speech zone when the president visits Utah?

Free speech zones help to provide a buffer for the public safety and
safety of others (like the pres), you take away that buffer in this case and you
have to take it away in ALL cases. Hey that would also mean that I could just
walk along the red carpet in Park City when the celebs come for the film
festival, this could get interesting.

A good Catholic friend of mine here in AZ went with me to the annual Easter
Pageant in Mesa.As usual, the anti's and their pamplets were there on
each corner chanting their loving remarks and handing out poorly printed
materials.I hadn't prepared my friend for what was coming, so when
they tried to talk to him he gave a most perfect response to the group.He
said "Do you people really have no more respect than this?" Is your
religion so shallow that you have nothing better to do than stand here and annoy
and offend these people?He then told them that he was a proud Catholic,
but felt grateful to be invited to a beautiful program depicting the life of
Christ. And ended saying "shame on you".I just smiled and thanked
him for expressing his honest feelings.